Get TheBlaze

User Profile: Peacemaker5150

Peacemaker5150

Member Since: October 01, 2011

Comments

  • [16] June 18, 2014 at 3:54pm

    How is it, that no one has filed a class action suit against these public officials for Breach of their Fiduciary obligation to the public, in their private capacities???

    Responses (2) +
  • April 17, 2014 at 7:21pm

    Get ‘government’ to lawfully agree you’re not a person subject to Acts:

    http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/11/23/get-government-to-lawfully-agree-that-youre-not-a-person-subject-to-acts/

  • April 17, 2014 at 7:19pm

    http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/11/23/get-government-to-lawfully-agree-that-youre-not-a-person-subject-to-acts/

  • April 17, 2014 at 7:18pm

    Creating Sovereign Law – Practice and Procedure:

    http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/11/23/get-government-to-lawfully-agree-that-youre-not-a-person-subject-to-acts/

  • April 17, 2014 at 7:16pm

    http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/11/23/get-government-to-lawfully-agree-that-youre-not-a-person-subject-to-acts/

  • March 6, 2014 at 3:59pm

    How tall was Einstein? any study re: child genius, and the height they achieved as adults showing taller than average? hmmm

  • February 21, 2014 at 1:17am

    I found out today from my insurance carrier Kaiser… that the variable costs of insurance of my older employees would be higher, I thought… Well, how is it that this doesn’t prevent those 40+ from having their applications considered? And then,

    Does this not expose a small business person, company, corporation… whatever… to law suits based on age discrimination, against those who have a higher expense based on age profiling?

  • November 22, 2013 at 10:55pm

    There are no STATES nor CITIZENS!!

    A CITIZEN is defined as a member of a body politic who gives an oath of allegiance, in return for a reciprocal Duty of Protection from the STATE. The Supreme Courts have ruled that there is NO duty to protect the “Individual” therefore there cannot be any CITIZENS.
    Peacemaker5150

  • November 22, 2013 at 10:43pm

    There are no STATES nor CITIZENS!!

    A CITIZEN is defined as a member of a body politic who gives an oath of allegiance, in return for a reciprocal Duty of Protection from the STATE. The Supreme Courts have ruled that there is NO duty to protect the “Individual” therefore there cannot be any CITIZENS.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 14, 2013 at 2:24pm

    Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the
    desert; ghettos; inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not
    exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are
    acceptable excuses for not using your boat.

    A government review board (that doesn’t know the difference between the port,
    starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including; when,
    where, how often and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how
    many people can ride your boat and determine if one is too old or healthy
    enough to be able to use their boat. They will also decide if your boat has
    out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories,(like
    a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.

    Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so…its only fair.

    The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with
    these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

    Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they
    and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers.

    Unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$)
    are also exempt.

    If the government can force you to buy health care, they can force you to buy a boat….or ANYTHING else..

  • November 14, 2013 at 2:23pm

    The Os Affordable Boat Act

    The US Government is:

    declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014.
    These “affordable” boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each.
    This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration
    fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.

    This law has been passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and
    financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new
    laws ensures that every American can now have a “affordable” boat of their
    own, because everyone is “entitled” to a new boat. If you purchase your boat
    before the end of the year, you will receive 4 “free” life jackets; not
    including monthly usage fees.

    In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of
    owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way,
    wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or
    can’t afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who can’t afford to
    maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can
    use their parents boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase
    their own boat.

    If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can’t).

    If you don’t want or don’t need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow.
    If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined
    $800 until you purchase

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] October 31, 2013 at 12:14am

    Correct! They are lawless. That’s not capitalism, it’s crony capitalism PERIOD. Why doesn’t the Tea Party and/or like minded conservatives put together a Class action suite, reestablishing our Common Law Jurisdiction over their Statutory Jurisdiction.

    A CITIZEN is defined as a member of a body politic who gives a pledge of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. Clearly a reciprocal scenario. There are several Supreme court cases showing there is no duty of the government/STATE/body politic to protect the individual, therefore NO duty of allegiance, and therefore no STATE, for those not participating. SO, what is this authority/jurisdiction requiring individuals to participate?

    The STATE is not the land, CLEARLY– as the land was here long before the STATES were formed.

    BTW– the only “PERSON” (A corporate fiction) required to follow the Statues and Acts are the members within the society. These tyrants are not operating within the LAW, rather are operating within the rules established to govern only their own “Legal” society. We NEED to return to LAW and Order and abandon this ridiculously oppressive Legal System, designed to restrict members of the Legal Society.
    Peacemaker5150

  • October 31, 2013 at 12:12am

    Yes, they are LAWLESS. That’s not capitalism, it’s crony capitalism PERIOD. Why doesn’t the Tea Party and like minded conservatives put together a Class action suite, reestablishing our Common Law Jurisdiction over their Statutory Jurisdiction.

    A CITIZEN is defined as a member of a body politic who gives a pledge of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. Clearly a reciprocal scenario. There are several Supreme court cases showing there is no duty of the government/STATE/body politic to protect the individual, therefore NO duty of allegiance, and therefore no STATE, for those not participating. SO, what is this authority/jurisdiction requiring individuals to participate?

    The STATE is not the land, CLEARLY– as the land was here long before the STATES were formed.

    BTW– the only “PERSON” (A corporate fiction) required to follow the Statues and Acts are the members within the society. These tyrants are not operating within the LAW, rather are operating within the rules established to govern only their own “Legal” society. We NEED to return to LAW and Order and abandon this ridiculously oppressive Legal System, designed to restrict members of the Legal Society.

  • October 31, 2013 at 12:08am

    That’s not capitalism, it’s crony capitalism PERIOD. Why doesn’t the Tea Party and like minded conservatives put together a Class action suite, reestablishing our Common Law Jurisdiction over their Statutory Jurisdiction.

    A CITIZEN is defined as a member of a body politic who gives a pledge of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. Clearly a reciprocal scenario. There are several Supreme court cases showing there is no duty of the government/STATE/body politic to protect the individual, therefore NO duty of allegiance, and therefore no STATE, for those not participating. SO, what is this authority/jurisdiction requiring individuals to participate?

    The STATE is not the land, CLEARLY– as the land was here long before the STATES were formed.

    BTW– the only “PERSON” (A corporate fiction) required to follow the Statues and Acts are the members within the society. These tyrants are not operating within the LAW, rather are operating within the rules established to govern only their own “Legal” society. We NEED to return to LAW and Order and abandon this ridiculously oppressive Legal System, designed to restrict members of the Legal Society.

  • October 16, 2013 at 10:16pm

    Does The STATE exist?? ex. It’s not the land, as there were no states before 1776. Ex. There was no state of Arizona prior to February of 1912, so

    The “STATE” is supposed to be a “Body politic, made up of “Citizens”, united under a government within a certain territory, but the territory is not the actual state. Well, a “Citizen” is a member of the “Body politic”, owing a “Duty of Allegiance”, in return for a “Duty of Protection”. They are reciprocal considerations– one for the other.

    Well, there are numerous Supreme Court cases citing that there is NO “Duty to protect an individual”. SO, IF the only thing that makes one a “Citizen” is “membership” in the “Body Politic”, with the “Duty of allegiance” in return for a “Duty of Protection”, BUT as noted, there is NO “Duty to protect you” then the whole thing just unravels.

    Well, without the reciprocal relationship (Allegiance for Protection):

    HOW, With NO “Duty to Protect”, is there a “Duty of Allegiance”?

    HOW, if there are NO “Citizens” as a result, therefore NO “Body Politic”, is there a “Government” / “STATE”?

  • October 14, 2013 at 11:48pm

    “Enough information”??? Someone (Burgler/trespasser/unknown individual) standing, uninvited in your home– is enough info to deem them a threat

  • September 25, 2013 at 6:06pm

    Does The STATE exist?? ex. It’s not the land, as there were no states before 1776. Ex. There was no state of Arizona prior to February of 1912, so

    The “STATE” is supposed to be a “Body politic, made up of “Citizens”, united under a government within a certain territory, but the territory is not the actual state. Well, a “Citizen” is a member of the “Body politic”, owing a “Duty of Allegiance”, in return for a “Duty of Protection”. They are reciprocal considerations– one for the other.

    Well, there are numerous Supreme Court cases citing that there is NO “Duty to protect an individual”. SO, IF the only thing that makes one a “Citizen” is “membership” in the “Body Politic”, with the “Duty of allegiance” in return for a “Duty of Protection”, BUT as noted, there is NO “Duty to protect you” then the whole thing just unravels.

    Well, without the reciprocal relationship (Allegiance for Protection):

    HOW, With NO “Duty to Protect”, is there a presumption/expectation that living men and women maintain a “Duty of Allegiance”, as a CITIZEN?

    HOW, if there are NO “Citizens” as a result, therefore NO “Body Politic”, is there a “Government” / “STATE”?

  • September 25, 2013 at 6:03pm

    Does The STATE exist?? ex. It’s not the land, as there were no states before 1776. Ex. There was no state of Arizona prior to February of 1912, so

    The “STATE” is supposed to be a “Body politic, made up of “Citizens”, united under a government within a certain territory, but the territory is not the actual state. Well, a “Citizen” is a member of the “Body politic”, owing a “Duty of Allegiance”, in return for a “Duty of Protection”. They are reciprocal considerations– one for the other.

    Well, there are numerous Supreme Court cases citing that there is NO “Duty to protect an individual”. SO, IF the only thing that makes one a “Citizen” is “membership” in the “Body Politic”, with the “Duty of allegiance” in return for a “Duty of Protection”, BUT as noted, there is NO “Duty to protect you” then the whole thing just unravels.

    Well, without the reciprocal relationship (Allegiance for Protection):

    HOW, With NO “Duty to Protect”, is there a presumption, and expectation of the government, that a “Duty of Allegiance” (subject to governments statutes) by FREE men and women be Lawful, legal or otherwise?

    HOW, if there are NO “Citizens” as a result, therefore NO “Body Politic”, is there a “Government” / “STATE”?

  • September 25, 2013 at 5:57pm

    Does The STATE exist?? ex. It’s not the land, as there were no states before 1776. Ex. There was no state of Arizona prior to February of 1912, so

    The “STATE” is supposed to be a “Body politic, made up of “Citizens”, united under a government within a certain territory, but the territory is not the actual state. Well, a “Citizen” is a member of the “Body politic”, owing a “Duty of Allegiance”, in return for a “Duty of Protection”. They are reciprocal considerations– one for the other.

    Well, there are numerous Supreme Court cases citing that there is NO “Duty to protect an individual”. SO, IF the only thing that makes one a “Citizen” is “membership” in the “Body Politic”, with the “Duty of allegiance” in return for a “Duty of Protection”, BUT as noted, there is NO “Duty to protect you” then the whole thing just unravels.

    Well, without the reciprocal relationship (Allegiance for Protection):

    HOW, With NO “Duty to Protect”, is there a presumption– on government’s part, for men and women to maintain a “Duty of Allegiance”?

    HOW, if there are NO “Citizens” as a result, therefore NO “Body Politic”, is there a “Government” / “STATE”?

  • September 25, 2013 at 5:53pm

    Does The STATE exist?? ex. It’s not the land, as there were no states before 1776. Ex. There was no state of Arizona prior to February of 1912, so

    The “STATE” is supposed to be a “Body politic, made up of “Citizens”, united under a government within a certain territory, but the territory is not the actual state. Well, a “Citizen” is a member of the “Body politic”, owing a “Duty of Allegiance”, in return for a “Duty of Protection”. They are reciprocal considerations– one for the other.

    Well, there are numerous Supreme Court cases citing that there is NO “Duty to protect an individual”. SO, IF the only thing that makes one a “Citizen” is “membership” in the “Body Politic”, with the “Duty of allegiance” in return for a “Duty of Protection”, BUT as noted, there is NO “Duty to protect you” then the whole thing just unravels.

    Well, without the reciprocal relationship (Allegiance for Protection):

    HOW, With NO “Duty to Protect”, is there an expectation to adhere to a “Duty of Allegiance”, subjecting “CITIZENS” to the statutes of the STATE and/or government?

    HOW, if there are NO “Citizens” as a result, therefore NO “Body Politic”, is there a “Government” / “STATE”?